Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds rich process details: the one-time human authorization step, what to prepare, what happens next, that it creates nothing by itself, and intake filtering. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: process explanation, prerequisites, return contents, and intake exclusions. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the process, prerequisites, expected outcome (link plus preparation/next steps), and intake exclusions. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed here. For a one-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the single required 'url' parameter with a clear description ('The infringing URL or bare domain'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get the secure onboarding link') and names the resource (takedown). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like assess_takedown and preserve_evidence by framing it as the initiation/onboarding step, not the assessment or evidence-preservation step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: use when ready to actually start a takedown and need the onboarding link. It states prerequisites (content owner opens link, signs authorization, proves ownership) and an exclusion (filings targeting lawful criticism, reviews, or journalism are declined). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for when to use them instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.